Take a photo of a barcode or cover
eckajay 's review for:
Superfreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
by Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner
I am not an economist in any way. I borrowed this book from my sister in the hopes that my education on this subject would be expanded and perhaps my perspective on how the world works in micro ways would change. However, what I got out of it is a hackneyed job of explaining any subject thoroughly. It lacked context and true analysis.
For example: Television is the cause of increased crime rate in major cities.
The theory: That cities had the supply of TVs sooner than other rural towns and therefore were able to access violent tv shows sooner and hence the influence more dominant.
HUH?!?!?!
what about the context???? Why isn’t he talking about the lack of resources those cities provide in education, job opportunities and rehabilitation? What about increases in police force in areas where there is higher POC, which then lead to an unjust increase in arrests? My point is there is so much more to increase crime rates than violent tv. The fact that he made the point is absurd and embarrassing.
Another example is the one about the female escort and how she has to retire as she’s reaching her 30s and therefore her appeal is decreasing. Also because her clock is ticking and will need to fix her reputation or save up enough money to fully retire otherwise she’ll never get married.
First off, what a misogynistic assumption to think A. She gives a shit about marrying. B. That shes straight and C. That she’s retiring to have a family.
Also, why is this book so focused on the “accomplishments” of men and the only topic on women is prostitution. I am certain there are DOZENS of other topics he could have chosen to write about but he chose the most sexist one.
This book is so flawed in its points that the authors university colleagues have written essays in response to the absurdity of his logic.
Lastly, don’t even get me started on the climate change chapter. I never have the time nor the breadth to explain how absurd it is. Like I mentioned I’m not well versed in those topics but even I know that the human activity is causing 40% of the increase in carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
I’m going to leave this article here for you to peruse should you wish to read on it. So glad I didn’t spend a penny on this nonsense and TRULY encourage others to not read it.
- https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/08/climate-change-superfreakonomics-superfreakingwrong
For example: Television is the cause of increased crime rate in major cities.
The theory: That cities had the supply of TVs sooner than other rural towns and therefore were able to access violent tv shows sooner and hence the influence more dominant.
HUH?!?!?!
what about the context???? Why isn’t he talking about the lack of resources those cities provide in education, job opportunities and rehabilitation? What about increases in police force in areas where there is higher POC, which then lead to an unjust increase in arrests? My point is there is so much more to increase crime rates than violent tv. The fact that he made the point is absurd and embarrassing.
Another example is the one about the female escort and how she has to retire as she’s reaching her 30s and therefore her appeal is decreasing. Also because her clock is ticking and will need to fix her reputation or save up enough money to fully retire otherwise she’ll never get married.
First off, what a misogynistic assumption to think A. She gives a shit about marrying. B. That shes straight and C. That she’s retiring to have a family.
Also, why is this book so focused on the “accomplishments” of men and the only topic on women is prostitution. I am certain there are DOZENS of other topics he could have chosen to write about but he chose the most sexist one.
This book is so flawed in its points that the authors university colleagues have written essays in response to the absurdity of his logic.
Lastly, don’t even get me started on the climate change chapter. I never have the time nor the breadth to explain how absurd it is. Like I mentioned I’m not well versed in those topics but even I know that the human activity is causing 40% of the increase in carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
I’m going to leave this article here for you to peruse should you wish to read on it. So glad I didn’t spend a penny on this nonsense and TRULY encourage others to not read it.
- https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/08/climate-change-superfreakonomics-superfreakingwrong